Facebook status: Prayer bombs or F bombs?

A recent study analyzed the status updates of 12,000 religious and non-religious Facebook users from the United States and the United Kingdom. The study performed a differential language assessment or "DLA" indicating which words the religious and non-religious used in their statuses. The vast majority of  those in the religious category identified themselves as Christian. The 75 words that are most common to each group are visualized below. The size of the word indicates how well it correlates with the group while the color indicates its frequency (red is frequent, gray is less frequent).



Wow.

As a whole, I would describe the religious cluster as gracious, thankful, content and happy while the non-religious cluster is angry, bitter, vulgar and critical. The most prominent word in the cluster for the religious is prayer while the most prominent word for the non-religious is f---. Life, love and smile are prominent in the religious cluster while dead, bloody (British respondents?), and sh-- are prominent in the non-religious cluster.

Religious Facebook users were more likely to use plural pronouns: us, we, you, let's and pronouns that referred to other people: you, u, ur, him. The non-religious used more 1st person singular pronouns: I, I've, I'd, I'm, my.  

The religious were more likely to use words that referred to family and friends: mom, father, fam, friends, friendship; while the non-religious used words that referred to media and entertainment: internet, film, episode, album, computer, laptop.

The non-religious were more likely to use descriptive words, adjectives and adverbs while the religious used words that referred to emotional states of being. This seems to indicate that the non-religious tend to be more critical and judgmental in their statuses.

As Christians the proper response to this study is to not pat ourselves on the back or to think we're better than our non-religious neighbors. The Bible teaches us that a thankful heart and gracious words are fruits of the Holy Spirit. Without the Spirit of God our natural default is to be miserable, vulgar, and self-absorbed. As the Apostle Paul said, "I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature" (Rom 7:18).

Godly attitudes and godly words originate with God as he breathes his Spirit into us through his Word.

When Nineveh Silenced the Skeptics

The Assyrian capital of Nineveh was arguably the greatest city in the world during the 8th century BC, ruling over an empire that stretched from Persia to Sudan.

Nineveh occupies an important place in the Biblical record. God sent his prophet Jonah to Nineveh to call the city to repentance. The prophets Isaiah, Micah, Nahum and Zephaniah ministered during the empire's existence and some of the most important Messianic prophecies were recorded during this time period (Isaiah 7:14, Micah 5:2).  The Assyrians destroyed the northern tribes of Israel and most of Judah. In fact, Jerusalem appears to be the only major city in the Middle East that escaped Assyrian destruction due to God's miraculous intervention. (Isaiah 37:36)

What most people do not know is that up until the last century and a half there was very little evidence for Nineveh's existence outside of the Biblical record. In his Philosophy of History Voltaire wrote that the existence of a large city called Nineveh "does not seem credible," that the existence of a powerful empire like Assyria has "but very little the air of probability," and that "Nineveh was not built...or at least had very little importance during the time of Jonah."

During the 1840s French archaeologist Paul-Emile Botta uncovered the palace of Ashurbanipal II at the Assyrian capital of Nimrud. Meanwhile, English archaeologist Austen Henry Laynard uncovered Sennacherib's palace at the Assyrian capital of Nineveh. These archaeological finds in northern Iraq uncovered a treasure trove of artifacts that silenced the skeptics.

Here's a list of some of the more significant findings:

• Details on the destruction of Samaria and the exile of the northern tribes. (2 Kings 17:3-6, 24; 18:9-11)
• The first non-Biblical evidence of King Sargon II (Isaiah 20:1)
• Assyrian king Sennacherib mentions King Hezekiah and admits that rather than taking Jerusalem he left Hezekiah in his city like a "bird in a cage." (2 Kings 18:13-16)
• Large wall reliefs of the destruction of Lachish, Judah's second largest. The ruins of which have been found in Israel. (2 Kings 18:14, 17)
• King Ahab mentioned by name as a member of an anti-Assyrian coalition. 
• A relief depicting the submission of Israel's king, Jehu. 
• The assassination of Sennacherib by his own sons (2 Kings 19:37)
• Records that king Manasseh paid tribute and accompanied the Assyrians on a military campaign in Egypt.

(Image: King Jehu submitting to Shalmaneser III)

The discovery of Nineveh and the records of the Assyrian kings teach us that the Bible is historically reliable. Most skeptics I interact with know very little of Biblical and Assyrian history.  Even Christians are content to ignore the historical significance of the Bible. This historical apathy has a way of undercutting the Bible's claim to truth. Christians and skeptics need to know that the Bible has a historical context that can be investigated.  

If the Bible is historically reliable is it reliable in other ways? Is the Bible a reliable book on theology and prophecy? Nineveh's discovery not only supports Biblical history but also Biblical prophecy. The prophet Nahum predicted the fall of the great city. Consider Zephaniah's description of Nineveh's destruction: "He will stretch out his hand against the north and destroy Assyria, leaving Nineveh utterly desolate and dry as a desert. This is the city of revelry that live in safety. She said to herself, "I am the one! And there is none besides me." What a ruin she has become, a lair for wild beasts! All who pass by her scoff and shake their fists" (Zeph. 2:14, 16).

Had Voltaire heeded Zephaniah's prophecy he would not have been so quick to doubt Nineveh and Assyria's existence. Nineveh was discovered in the exact condition that Zephaniah had prophesied centuries before: "a dry, desolate place...a lair for wild beasts."

Did the discovery of Nineveh make men like Voltaire more open to the truth of Scripture? No, their approach to the Bible has always followed the pattern of "guilty and never to be proven innocent no matter what evidence turns up!" They will continue to cling to their foolish assumptions and inaccurate caricatures of the Bible no matter what archaeology turns up. Their position does not stem from an open mind but from a spiritually rebellious heart. The proper response to such skeptics is to shake the dust from one's feet and to relay the message that they will share the same fate as the defiant and arrogant city of Nineveh.

New Atheism Is Aging Terribly

In the early 2000s the four horsemen of the non-apocalypse charged out of the starting gates to declare war on religion. The four militant atheists included Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennet and the now-deceased Christopher Hitchens. Others who hopped onto the religion bashing bandwagon included Bill Maher, Dan Barker, Matt Dillahaunty, Peter Atkins, Lawrence Krauss and even Penn & Teller.

What caused such a godless commotion in the early 2000s? Some would argue that 9/11 and a religiously charged political landscape triggered the new atheist movement. Progressives worried that they were being sandwiched in-between fanatical Islam and fanatical fundamentalist Christianity. The LGBT movement also saw a useful ally in the new atheists.

But times, they are a changin'. A theocratic boogeyman has not taken over the White House. We are no where close to the dystopian world of the Handmaid's Tale. The last two presidents have not appeared to be very religious. The LGBT movement is getting its way. College-aged kids now have no recollection of 9/11 and the person who is currently the greatest threat to the United States is a chubby little atheist in North Korea.

What do post-9/11 millennials hate these days? They hate “hate-speech.”  This has become a huge PR problem for the new atheists. I'm not sure when "hate-speech" became a popular phrase but it seems that most secular thinking people are distancing themselves from certain new atheists over incendiary remarks. Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Bill Maher have all lost followers due to crude remarks. While harsh criticisms of Christianity seem to be tolerated, a religion like Islam has achieved special-interest status among progressives and criticism of the multi-ethnic religion of Islam is seen as racist. Consider the following interchange between atheist Bill Maher and Hollywood progressive Ben Affleck:

While the new atheists are being silenced on the secular front it seems that they have met their match on the religious front. The new atheist movement breathed new life into Christian apologetics. Christian thinkers met the atheist challenge by not only defending Christianity but by exposing many of the new atheists argument and as untenable and the atheistic worldview as irrational. The new atheist movement took on 2000 years of Christian thought and philosophy and found themselves lacking.

Does this mean that the world is becoming increasingly religious? No, not really. For the Christian, atheism is a mere outlier in the world of unbelief. Just because the secular world is not inherently atheist does not mean that they are inherently Christian.